Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Charleston Goes Non-Union  
User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 770 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6571 times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nology/2009842237_webboeing10.html

Boeing's Charleston plant has gone non-union. This could also make the site a more attractive candidate for Boeing's 2nd 787 assembly line.

Serious question. I know that Boeing and the IAM have had many clashes out in Everett/Renton over the years. I also heard that Boeing has considered moving commercial aircraft production overseas (notably China).

We would all prefer them to remain in the USA, so why not move commercial aircraft production to Charleston, SC? SC is a right-to-work state and the probability of union interference in progress will be minimal.

76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1850 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6564 times:

you'd think that unions would at least rather want to keep the jobs here in the US if it came down to it, but many unions operate on a self-preservation philosophy where they would prefer to keep the organization intact even if it means the loss of hundreds of jobs.

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8497 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6533 times:



Quoting Iloveboeing (Thread starter):
We would all prefer them to remain in the USA, so why not move commercial aircraft production to Charleston, SC? SC is a right-to-work state and the probability of union interference in progress will be minimal.

One would have to ask the question, if one is not making money in the aircraft industry, why one would advocate taking other folks livilihood away? Such as workers losing their lifelong jobs (Washington State) as a company goes after cheap labor within the US. We all know that Alabama would take anyones job without a second thought. I guess the folks in Alabama deserve it?  Sad



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29649 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Scott Hamilton commented on local Seattle radio this morning, noting that even if Charleston went non-union, if Boeing put a second FAL there specifically because they were now a non-union shop, that would make Boeing's discussions with the IAM in a few years much more difficult because at that point, the IAM would have nothing to lose because eventually Boeing would leave the State.

I could also see this possibly making it harder for Boeing to secure any "opaque subsidies" from Washington State and it might also make the WA delegation that much less interested in pushing Boeing's interests on things like the KC-767 Advanced and P-8 Poseidon, knowing that eventually those lines would be shut-down and nothing would replace them.

[Edited 2009-09-10 16:24:08]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11910 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6329 times:

Oy vey!

Boeing Charleston will not be a union shop for now.

What that means is they find the terms and conditions of thier jobs acceptable.

Why should that be such a huge surprise, most of the US work force is NON union.

From what I've seen, being a union worker and a non-union worker, the union workers feel a sense of entitlement.

Sad to say, but that's not how the real world works.

All uf us have to earn our keep, and no union can change that fundamental rule, at least not for long.

I'd love to see a labor council meet with management over contentious issues, but the reality is this happens far too infrequently, because management does not want to give away any power it has to the workers.

The end result is workers vote with their feet and leave, and management quite often looses a valuable worker that could have been retained had there been at least some channel for their grievances to be heard.

And so it goes..



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1896 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6266 times:

Presumably this means quality goes up and prices go down.

It's nice when people aren't protected or entitles to a job and have to earn it every day. We all work harder and more efficiently that way, that's for sure.



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6160 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2):
One would have to ask the question, if one is not making money in the aircraft industry, why one would advocate taking other folks livilihood away? Such as workers losing their lifelong jobs (Washington State) as a company goes after cheap labor within the US. We all know that Alabama would take anyones job without a second thought. I guess the folks in Alabama deserve it?

I don't understand your questions:

1. Who is not making money in the aircraft industry?

2. Who is trying to take jobs away from Washington State?

Also Charleston is in South Carolina not Alabama?

Seems to me that if Boeing feels they need a second assembly line for the 787 and they opt for the second line in South Carolina (or is it Alabama) they will hire new employees from that area. If they choose to open a second line in Washington State they would hire new employees from that area. Where is South Carolina (or Alabama) taking "life long" jobs away from Washington State, These are new jobs that currently do not exist? Washington State will still have the same number of people on the first assembly line!


User currently offlineChrisjw From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6117 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 7):
Where is South Carolina (or Alabama) taking "life long" jobs away from Washington State, These are new jobs that currently do not exist? Washington State will still have the same number of people on the first assembly line!

For that part, I believe he was talking about a potential move of Boeing away from WA. He was talking 5-10+ years in advance. Boeing already has moved there HQ away from WA (In SEA, many of us felt 'betrayed' ). I'm talking purely on speculation, but I believe Boeing will eventually move its production out of SEA.


User currently offlineTimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6079 times:

I hope airliners.net is still around, but believe me, this is just another step in the movement away of aircraft manufacturing in the Puget Sound. By 2020 or so, the Seattle area will be feeling the pain that Southern California felt in the early 90's. WA won't be able to compete with the right to work states and lower costs of the South.

The Charleston line will open, but in 8-10 years, after the peak 787 production is done, mark my words, the first of the 2 assembly lines to close will be in Everett. The 737 replacement may very well have nothing to do with the Puget Sound region, also. The Puget Sound, long term, will slowly bleed jobs. That will dramatically accelerate once the WA state 787 line closes, the 737 line closes, the 747 finishes production, and the 777 dwindles. All of those lines may very well close or gear into low production about the same time, 2015-2020. Maybe 2018-2022. I HATE to see Seattle lose this business. But looking out 10-15 years from now, I can't see this NOT happening.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6075 times:



Quoting Chrisjw (Reply 8):
For that part, I believe he was talking about a potential move of Boeing away from WA. He was talking 5-10+ years in advance. Boeing already has moved there HQ away from WA (In SEA, many of us felt 'betrayed' ). I'm talking purely on speculation, but I believe Boeing will eventually move its production out of SEA.

You will get little sympathy from me. I lived in the same house in California for 36 years (it was paid off) when Lockheed told me I could move to Georgia or look for a new job for the first time in 20 years. Did I feel "betrayed" no way, I knew it was not my job, it was Lockheed's job and they just let me do it. If I wanted to continue working I had to go where Lockheed was moving there job.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11116 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6055 times:



Quoting Timpdx (Reply 9):
I hope airliners.net is still around, but believe me, this is just another step in the movement away of aircraft manufacturing in the Puget Sound.

Agreed.

Strategically, looking over the long curve of future events, it seems crystal clear - at least to me - that this is just one in a series of steps (prior to this and to come) to not only shift its manufacturing base away from Seattle, but in the broader sense, diversify their manufacturing base so that Boeing is not beholden to one particular region, union, etc.

In the context of the airline industry, it's just like how, following the disastrous Comair strike in 2001, Delta made the strategic decision to diversify its regional flying among different operators, and also mix different operators over different hubs so that one particular hub wasn't too dependent on any one regional carrier.

That's all Boeing is doing here. Boeing is sick of dealing with the unions in Seattle - right or wrong, anyone could have seen that coming. If Boeing has an opportunity to build manufacturing bases in other locations in the United States with not only lower labor costs and no unions, but also lower energy costs, substantially lower taxes, etc., then I fully expect them to take advantage of that.


User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6039 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
the union workers feel a sense of entitlement.

Completely opposite, reading your writing and that of the non union people on here, you are the ones with a sense of entitlement.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8197 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6013 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 6):
that Kool-Aid sure still packs a punch, the water coolers must be full of the stuff.

If South Carolina and Alabama are so oppressed, why not go down there and try to convince the citizens they should change their state laws? AFAIK, the BMW factory in SC has hired 5,000 American workers, who manufacture probably some of the highest quality automobiles in the United States. Those workers are proud of what they do.

Boeing is looking for that kind of relationship. Not more of the IAM. If people want to support the IAM, they should not be surprised if Boeing prefers to hire other Americans who have a different attitude. To begrudge the hiring of other Americans is perverted logic. Are Seattle residents more American than Charleston SC, hell no. Don't even go there. It's simple, one group wants to work hard for their money and the other group figures that you should take whatever you can from society, by any means. Two theories, each a little bit contemptuous of the other.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 10):
Did I feel "betrayed" no way, I knew it was not my job, it was Lockheed's job and they just let me do it.

Yeah, I figure that's an adult viewpoint.


User currently offlineChrisjw From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5934 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 10):
You will get little sympathy from me.

Don't get me wrong, I was just trying to clear up some of WarRI1's post. I believe that IAM shot themselves in the foot with the future of Boeing in WA.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Are Seattle residents more American than Charleston SC, hell no. Don't even go there.

Can't agree more. I'll be happy if Boeing stays in America.


User currently onlineTomFoolery From Austria, joined Jan 2004, 519 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5825 times:

It is never pretty when a major industry leaves town. Pittsburg lost a huge chunk of the steel industry, and the city took a very long time to recover. I see the same thing starting to happen here.

Is it expensive labor vs. cheap labor? Is it high cost of living vs. low? Is it in fact union vs. non union? There are alot of factors here. One thing is clear, something major developed to get Boeing management to not only consider moving out of Washington (this is nothing new), but actually follow through.

The possibility was there, and in order to preserve a failing supply chain (with Vought Charleston) and ensure that vital components do not suffer further delay, Boeing and Vought determined that the best way forward was for Boeing to purchase the plant. This included the workforce, machines, everything. The workforce was not union under Vought, and despite efforts from the unions representing Boeing, opted not to organize under Boeing.

I would be very interested in seeing how 2 lines producing the same thing under different organization structures compare to each other. So a union has workers out of their influence, at least we still have work stateside. Just ask someone in Pittsburg about that.

Tom



Paper makes an airplane fly
User currently offlineHikesWithEyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 816 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5811 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 11):

That's all Boeing is doing here. Boeing is sick of dealing with the unions in Seattle - right or wrong, anyone could have seen that coming. If Boeing has an opportunity to build manufacturing bases in other locations in the United States with not only lower labor costs and no unions, but also lower energy costs, substantially lower taxes, etc., then I fully expect them to take advantage of that.

Boeing has had to deal with a lot of nasty strikes over the past 20 years, so I think that
if they don't get a no-strike cause for a certain period of time, they will eventually move
all production out of the state.
Can't say I blame them. As a WA. resident I would be sad to see the jobs go, but it's
completely understandable.



First, benzene in my Perrier, and now this!
User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 5810 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
one group wants to work hard for their money

Not quite. More like one group has higher costs of living compared to the other


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8497 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4996 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 7):
Also Charleston is in South Carolina not Alabama?

Sorry, I was drinking Kool_aid there. I got the tanker thread confused with the Boeing thread, Kool-aid can do that too you, if you drink too much. I was addressing the young man, and why he would advocate moving jobs from one state to another and was wondering if he had a stake in the moving of those jobs, such as living in Alabama, oops, I mean South Carolina.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineF9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4945 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4909 times:



Quoting HikesWithEyes (Reply 16):
Can't say I blame them. As a WA. resident I would be sad to see the jobs go, but it's
completely understandable.

It would cripple Washington. It would also hurt Alaska in Seattle.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineZKNBS From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4893 times:

It is not just a Boeing issue it is a cultural issues in which the vast majority of southern state government run on the idea that low taxation and small government will allow their respective economies to flourish and the business friendly climate will naturally attract investment from the private sector. Having grown up and lived most of my live in Texas I have seen this first hand. After living in the Northwest for the past 2 1/2 years I can tell you the sense of entitlement here is unbelievable. The unions are just apart of that culture. The same that is in play in California and it has been very successful in driving business out of the state and I have seen the same thing in both Washington and Oregon. It is just a matter of time before Boeing shuts down production in the northwest and heads south to business friendlier states with lower taxes. It is simple economics.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29649 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4837 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting F9Animal (Reply 19):
(Losing Boeing) would cripple Washington. It would also hurt Alaska in Seattle.

Maybe back in the 1970's and 1980's, but the state is much more diversified now. Losing Boeing and it's jobs would be a blow, to be sure, but it won't be a case of "the last person leaving turning out the lights".

Not sure how it hurts AS. They may need to pay a higher delivery charge on their 737RS' since they won't be able to pick them up at BFI, but other than that.


User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1688 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4634 times:

Many in the south gloated when they took high paying textile jobs from New England. You all know where those jobs are now. Race to the bottom if you are a production worker.

Unions were dumb to strike Boeing last fall, and they really need to do something about future strikes if Boeing is to stay in Seattle. The simplest would be to pay comparable to Airbus.

As a Washington resident I am perceiving that many of us are asking questions as to whether we want Boeing to be part of our future. The ethically lapsing, management dis functioning company we have seen over the last 5 or 6 years (since MD took them over) is not the Boeing we knew and were ready to mortgage the farm to keep it going.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4574 times:



Quoting TomFoolery (Reply 15):
The workforce was not union under Vought, and despite efforts from the unions representing Boeing, opted not to organize under Boeing.

Incorrect... the workers there decided to go union a few months after starting the plant as VOUGHT employees. They got a crappy contract because the union pulled a standard union move and there was only 11 people who voted on it. Now, for obvious reasons they still feel betrayed and have decided to go non-union. Good luck Boeing Charelston, but Boeing just won... you lost.



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4434 times:



Quoting FrmrCAPCADET (Reply 22):
The simplest would be to pay comparable to Airbus.

Suggest reading paragraph nine of:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...hives/2008/09/boeings_on_stri.html

I know when I worked and lived in the UK my salary was on par with or higher than my contemporaries that worked for UK firms.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12054 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4375 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2):
Quoting Iloveboeing (Thread starter):
We would all prefer them to remain in the USA, so why not move commercial aircraft production to Charleston, SC? SC is a right-to-work state and the probability of union interference in progress will be minimal.

One would have to ask the question, if one is not making money in the aircraft industry, why one would advocate taking other folks livilihood away? Such as workers losing their lifelong jobs (Washington State) as a company goes after cheap labor within the US. We all know that Alabama would take anyones job without a second thought. I guess the folks in Alabama deserve it?

Well, Boeing does have to remain competitive with Airbus. Not having to wet-nurse a union contract will help.

Quoting Chrisjw (Reply 8):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 7):
Where is South Carolina (or Alabama) taking "life long" jobs away from Washington State, These are new jobs that currently do not exist? Washington State will still have the same number of people on the first assembly line!

For that part, I believe he was talking about a potential move of Boeing away from WA. He was talking 5-10+ years in advance. Boeing already has moved there HQ away from WA (In SEA, many of us felt 'betrayed' ). I'm talking purely on speculation, but I believe Boeing will eventually move its production out of SEA.

I do too. Boeing already has production facilities in KS and TX, both right to work states, although many workers in KS are in the IAM.

Quoting Timpdx (Reply 9):
I HATE to see Seattle lose this business. But looking out 10-15 years from now, I can't see this NOT happening.

Correct, last year's strike by the IAM crippled Boeing. Boeing needs to do something to remain competitive, esspeically if China begins building airplanes, like the C-919.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 11):
Boeing is sick of dealing with the unions in Seattle

Correct, and the IAM and Engineer's union have no one to blame but themselves.

Quoting 413x3 (Reply 12):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
the union workers feel a sense of entitlement.

Completely opposite, reading your writing and that of the non union people on here, you are the ones with a sense of entitlement.

Oh really? Have you looked at DL, WN, and opther non-union companies?

Quoting TomFoolery (Reply 15):
Pittsburg lost a huge chunk of the steel industry, and the city took a very long time to recover.

Thanks to the steel workers union. You may also recall it was the union's refusing to give concessions that also killed EA and PA.


25 413X3 : Southwest is non-union? Go ahead, name them. DL is a big cluster of angry workers, especially with the America West merger. I don't think you are hel
26 474218 : Did I miss something when did Delta merge with America West?
27 Lightsaber : I think this is the shot fired across the bows. Boeing took quite the black eye with the last strike. They need to maintain consistent production eve
28 413X3 : Oops, Northwest. As if you didn't know what I mean...
29 FlyDeltaJets87 : Just as I'm sure Rhode Island would be happy to have any corporation move its HQ or production plant to RI, right? The job of a company is to make mo
30 413X3 : They might be one of the worst to deal with, but I'm still waiting for them to give examples of successful non union airlines
31 Stitch : Well the first thing the Charleston workers need to do is actually assemble ten Section 47s and 48s a month to feed the existing FAL when it re-starts
32 Lightsaber : They apparently are continuing to grow. B6 So far the best service I've received flying domestically. Lightsaber
33 Wn700driver : I seem to recall South Carolina starting the civil war. In all seriousness though, I don't think it's the best place for a second line. Agreed in pri
34 Nwaesc : According to whom? What metric(s) are you using to base that on?
35 Buddys747 : That's funny because it's seems a good many on here seem to blame the unions for everything and are lazy and unproductive compared to there non-union
36 F9Animal : My concern would be the amount of travel lost by Boeing employees in the Seattle area, and even more so the corporate travel. It would hurt, there is
37 ER757 : Just wondering if there's any chance that when their current contract is up, that the IAM members at Boeing's Puget Sound area locations might conside
38 StuckInCA : Every state should be a right to work state. I don't understand how you can be required to join a union to hold a job at a company. If the union was w
39 WarRI1 : I am sure you are correct, we have let this playing one state off against another get to this point where the only winners seem to be the companies.
40 Micstatic : Good question. Could this happen?
41 Pyrex : How about you give examples of successful airlines, period? Apparently the whole "freedom of association" thing goes out of the window when the assoc
42 FlyDeltaJets87 : Well since that's what you think of the South, it's clear it's not worth trying to have an intelligent discussion with you. As someone who has spent
43 WarRI1 : It is funny, I have close family in the South, Florida in fact. I guess if one is educated and washed, there is no cause for insult. My main point wh
44 Lightsaber : Agree in principal. Except I would strike NV off the list (lack of certain manufacturing support sub-industries). Lightsaber
45 Tdscanuck : It's technically possible, but very very difficult because the legal framework and the IAM itself (the union, not the members) would make it extraord
46 PPVRA : And workers and their minions would do the EXACT same thing for higher pay. . . Quit whining. You're playing the same game they are. My only problem
47 PPVRA : I don't mind an employer voluntarily accepting only union workers, which may or may not be illegal in right-to-work states, but to have this kind of
48 474218 : My major complaint with some union is when they start trying to run the company. An example of that is the IAM at Boeing not wanting the vendors empl
49 NWAESC : I was kinda with you until you said this: No one on the line has/had a say in what/where/when any cars were built. In fact, their concerns of a few ye
50 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : Then maybe you should have said that, instead of insulting those of us who live south of the Ohio River and painting us all with one broad brush.  
51 BMI727 : Actually I think that they kind of do. I want to say that when Chevy discontinued the Camaro in 2002, the agreement was that if they brought it back
52 LTBEWR : By having a non-union workforce and in a lower cost of living area of the USA for part of the company's operations Boeing gains in a number of ways. L
53 FrmrCAPCADET : Actually Washington has fairly low health costs. We subsidize other states with Medicare and Medicaid. For the most part the non-union states are heav
54 Post contains links PPVRA : Washington State has the second most expensive health insurance in the nation, behind only Mass, according to the following study: http://www.sbecoun
55 FrmrCAPCADET : Interesting, I will have to check this. I know that Washington state has one of the lower reimbursement rates for Medicare, because we are lower cost.
56 WarRI1 : I will stand by my statement above about who should or should not be insulted. As far as I can tell, we are not short of people here, in fact there a
57 WarRI1 : Does not make one iota of sense. This is not a game first of all. The word Tyranny, certainly applies to companies and their minions, read the histor
58 Post contains links WarRI1 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyin...ted_States#Top_sectors_by_spending Here are some figures, it looks like labor comes in way down the list accord
59 PPVRA : Really? You would stay at a company that pays you less than the one next door? Certainly applies to unions! Read the history books. Yes!
60 FlyDeltaJets87 : I don't know how you prove that lobbying amounts by businesses are "anti-labor" or "pro-labor" spending from this list. So if you want to prove that
61 WarRI1 : [quote=PPVRA,reply=60]Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 58): The word Tyranny, certainly applies to companies and their minions, read the history books. Certainly
62 WarRI1 : I do not think anyone would think after reading millions and billions just on that chart could even entertain the notion that labor outspent business
63 Post contains links FrmrCAPCADET : This Small Business Assoc. chart is largely phony. It scores a variety of things (arbitrary), and adds them up to get a score. If you want to see som
64 Post contains links PPVRA : Yeah I quoted the wrong study. The SBA is just an index, while I meant to quote this one: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...ating-Up-Middle-Clas
65 FrmrCAPCADET : Thanks - I had been trying to find that information. What is interesting is that Medicare costs vary widely across the high and low states, whereas p
66 PPVRA : Thanks for that link too, it's interesting. That disparity is intriguing, I would have thought maybe population density had something to do with it,
67 FlyDeltaJets87 : But again, you have not proven that the money spent by businesses was "Anti-Labor". Saying it is doesn't make it true. The airline industry is a perf
68 Buddys747 : As is big business, chamber of commerce, etc. is very one sided to the right. This is nothing new, it's been this way for years. I respect your job i
69 Post contains links FlyDeltaJets87 : Not true, at least according to this source: Group............Grand Total......Democrats........Republicans.....Dem %.......Repub % Business......$23
70 WarRI1 : I agree, It maybe hard to prove any of it by reported figures, we all know what is reported is not usually accurate or clearly stated. I guess the sy
71 Stitch : It should be noted that source is showing 2010 projections and the Democrats control the White House and the Congress, so that they are getting the b
72 WarRI1 : I could not agree more, the money swings in the winds of change and opportunity, with lobbyists ideology has nothing to do with it, influence is the
73 Mrocktor : The problem is not lobbyists or money. The problem are the powers the government has granted itself in the centuries since the Declaration of Indepen
74 413X3 : quite ridiculous of a claim to make. The US Government was not limited, it was extremely protectionist with Westward expansion, giving away cheap sub
75 WarRI1 : I beg to differ, lobbying and money are the root cause of what is wrong in this country, and our conservative Supreme Court may make it easier for lo
76 Mrocktor : Thats a curious claim, seeing as the United States' constitution was the first document in the history of mankind to declare that a country's governm
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Delta Technicians Remain Non-Union posted Thu Feb 26 2009 09:51:44 by FFLyerWorld
CO Screws Non-union Employees posted Wed Dec 20 2006 15:26:58 by CLE757
Non-Union Delta Vs. Union US Airways posted Wed Nov 15 2006 17:39:58 by CO767FA
And The Last Boeing 757....goes To..........? posted Sat Jun 12 2004 03:04:47 by Deltadude8
Is JetBlue The Largest Non-union Airline Ever? posted Fri May 30 2003 08:04:08 by IslandHopper
Britsih Airways To Dhaka Goes Non-stop posted Sat Oct 27 2001 12:49:41 by Airmale
Boeing North Charleston News posted Tue Aug 4 2009 16:18:06 by PPVRA
ATWOnline: Union Vs Boeing - New Round Today posted Wed Oct 22 2008 22:53:57 by OyKIE
Machinists Union Calls For Boeing Strike posted Sat Aug 30 2008 05:47:34 by Henkybaby
Hong Kong Airlines Goes Airbus, Drops Boeing? posted Thu Jun 21 2007 10:31:53 by Scbriml